The mid-term elections are just a few days away, and the GOP is expected to take some heavy losses, but for some the finger-pointing can't wait until afterward. Via Volker: David Rose previews an upcoming Vanity Fair article in which the pillars of the neocon movement point the finger of blame at George W. Bush for the ongoing disaster in Iraq.
It was their idea, fully consistent with their focus on using American power to project freedom and democracy, by force if necessary, in order to advance American interests. And it was the right idea they still say, but Bush botched it. They're half right. It wasn't the right idea. It was a terrible idea, and the blame should be placed squarely on them for that... but Bush did botch it.
He's botching his global war on terrorism, too. And before anyone posts a comment about the fact that there hasn't been an attack in the US since September 11, 2001, I suggest you re-read the previous sentence, with the emphasis in the right place: the global war on terrorism. That's Bush's own description, and there is no question at all that global terrorism has been increasing. Either the "global" part of Bush's war on terrorism is a sham, or he's botching it... or both.
I can't wait for Tuesday. I'm not convinced that it will be as big a Democratic win as many believe it will be, but I'm ready to cast my vote to start restoring rationality and competence to our government.
1. Bruce Perry11/05/2006 12:01:59 AM
I'm hoping the Democrats can at least take the House. The Senate would be nice too, but that's looking less likely from what I've read.
Proponents of the Iraq war have failed to explain how it helps in the global war on terror. Has it reduced Islamic extremism? Has it captured Osama, the architect of the 9/11 attacks? Has it reduced terrorist access to nuclear materials worldwide? Has it helped secure our ports and borders? Has it given us leads on the anthrax attacks?
I'd argue that the Iraq has pulled resources away from all these things. BTW, in case anyone is curious, I thought the war in Afghanistan was justified.
2. John Head11/05/2006 12:00:43 PM
You should read this: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-10-29-1.html
very well written and speaks to my thoughts.
3. Ian Randall11/06/2006 10:25:20 AM
The biggest problem in Afganistan is not terrorism, it's opium.
If the US was really serious about tackling global terrorism, they would get out of Iraq and tackle terrorism in Pakistan. Do you really want terrorists to get their hands on an Atom Bomb? or gain control of one of the largest military forces in the world.
However, US Voters should really focus on how badly the Bush Administration has mishandled the US Domestic fiscal policy and it's total failure to address global warming. Bush has managed to F#@k both the US economy and the environmental future for future generations.
The US Senate has sanctioned the Bush Administration's use of torture and the abandonment of human rights for both domestic and foreign nationals and have become the thing they fear the most, international terrorists.
All US voters have a moral obligation to vote this Government out on its arse. If you don't, you only have yourselves to blame.
4. Bruce Perry11/06/2006 11:51:16 AM
@2, Orson Scott Card is a fine SF/fantasy writer. I've read and enjoyed many of his books. That essay, however, is pure fantasy.
He starts badly. He claims to be a Democrat, yet claims that Democrats can't be trusted with power just now. If Democrats are so untrustworthy, why does he claim to be one?
He claims Bush is a moderate and that current policy is deliberately designed to prevent various Islamic factions from uniting against us. I can't believe that. Try reading "Fiasco"; the known facts just don't support that conclusion.
Card's major problem seems to be that he overestimates the number of people out to get us. Plus, he never explains to my satisfaction why the Iraq war will help stop them. They weren't in Iraq.
Containment and diplomacy worked against a major threat during the cold war. I don't see why it won't work now.
In conclusion, if we want more democracy worldwide, we need to live up to our own ideals.
5. Richard Schwartz11/06/2006 01:51:51 PM
@3 Ian: Agree, though I wouldn't focus exclusively on Pakistan. I doubt you would either.
@2 John: The most glaring flaw in that thinking is assigning zero chance of arriving at a "winning" scenario if the Democrats gain control. The only basis for doing that would be to unquestionably accept the Bush administration's definition of winning -- which the Democrats do not accept, and which I would argue they can not accept since the Bush administration has not actually defined what winning is. The next most glaring flaw is that it ignores the possibility (which Democrats will argue is a probability bordering on certainty!) that continuing to pursue the Bush administration's policy objectives under their (incompetent) management will actually make things much worse, making the downside so large that the "expected return" (the term used in properly evaluating probabilistic questions) on the GOP policy is still worse even if one does accept the assertion that the GOP policy gives at least a chance of victory whereas the Democrats give none. It ignores the possibility that the Democrats will keep the situation from getting any worse, whereas the GOP has a one percent chance of victory but a 99% chance of arriving at ten years time at a global hot war between with an Islamic caliphate led by nuclear Iran and Pakistan allied against the West.
6. Charles Robinson11/06/2006 02:35:34 PM
Card should stick to fiction. He writes it well.
7. vesoftware11/05/2013 11:12:52 PM
Agen Bola Promo 100% SBOBET IBCBET Casino Poker Tangkas Online
ITUPOKER.COM AGEN POKER ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA
alfaonline.com : Toko belanja online murah, Promo heboh jual barang hanya Rp 1,-